Anti-Feminist Theory of Men's Rights, Male Sexuality, Feminism

Well, whaddya know?  Looks like the boffins are finally catching up with sexual trade union theory, as well as basic common sense.  No, really, cultural marxism explains everything about feminism (sarcasm).

http://www.counselheal.com/articles/1762/20120503/sexual-competition-causes-jealousy-envy-more-women.htm

Sexual competition affects women more than men in raising jealousy and envy in a work environment, according to a recent study.

The study of analyzing the differences between men and women in feeling jealous and envious was published in the journal Revista de Psicología Sociai by a group of researchers from universities in Valencia, Spain, Groningen, Netherlands, and Palermo, Argentina. Women are more likely to feel jealous and envy in a sexual competition than men, while social skills provoked men and women equally.

“Women with a high level of intrasexual competition are more jealous if the rival is more attractive and more envious if the rival is more powerful and dominating. They did not get any results in men, as no rival characteristics that provoke jealousy or envy predicted intrasexual competition,” co-author Rosario Zurriaga at University of Valencia told Servico de Información y Noticias Científicas (SINC).

Intrasexual competition, as the study defined, is a competition between same sex people trying to keep access to the opposite sex. The group of researchers distributed questionnaires to around 200 people and chose 114 as the sample for the exploratory study. The sample was 50 percent men and 50 percent women, and they had an average age of 36 years and spent 11 years in their current employment.

The studied defined jealously as “a threat or loss of success in a relationship due to interference from a rival and implies a loss or threat of loss of what they had” and envy as “a response to another person who has success, skills, or qualities that they desire and involves a lack in comparison to the envied person”.

Sexual competition made women feel jealous and envious more so than men. Rival’s social skills, however, provoked both men and women equally.

“Our research intends to clarify the role of emotions like envy and jealousy at work. These feelings have not been studied in working contexts and can cause stress in workers and negatively affect the quality of working life,” said the researcher.

“This is one of the first studies that examines rivals’ characteristics in this environment and contributes to a better understanding of conflicts and problems that can occur in working relationships,” they said.

The study implied that in order to prevent the negative effects, they should modify aspects such as the perception of threat, loss, or comparison with others at work.

Our friend Hank Pellissier recently contacted me regarding a possible interview that would be published at the IEET.  Unfortunately, that wasn’t possible (permissible), but I answered his questions via e-mail anyway, and the results have been published at what appears to be one of the few transhumanist sites that aren’t 100% for the eradication of the male gender.

Interview with an Anti-Feminist

In terms of emerging technology – do you think sexbots will replace women, for many men? what about sexbots replacing men for women?

Sexbots are seen largely as a symbolic representation of the idea that technology may one day free men from their sexual dependence upon women. Personally, I think that the technology required for autonomous artificially intelligent sexbots to satisfy the psychological sexual needs of either men or women are decades away. Transhumanism itself is likely a safer bet for creating the ‘ideal’ sexual partner. Much of our discontent is rooted in the mal-adaptive and conflicting sexual psychologies that we still carry around with us – from male slut shaming of women in an age of contraception, abortion, and paternity testing, to the selfish female desire for monogamy and commitment in a partner (not likely to be conducive to happiness when sex becomes completely divorced from reproduction, when few people have children, and we are all living to be 1,000).

 

As far as physical technologies are concerned, much more exciting and immediate than sexbots are the roles that telepresence, augmented reality, and 3D printing will enable both men and women to benefit from the free sexual market. 3D printing will allow the cheap and easy production of realistic sex dolls that can be life-like replicas of anybody on Earth (or a fantasy ideal figure). Although this may sound disturbing and selfish, its real value will be when conjoined with tele-presence technology (in a sense, sex bots controlled remotely for virtual sex). ‘Sex bots’ will not replace men or women, but will instead be used to enrich the sex lives between men and women. Older women (and men) will be able to enjoy sex in the bodies of their youthful selves again, or in any kind of ‘improved’ or fantasy body that they wish. In addition, and probably much sooner than that, augmented reality glasses or contact lenses will allow a similar effect – your lover will see you as however you (or he/she) wishes you to appear. This will likely happen within the next 5-10 years. Finally, rejuvenation therapies will eventually mean that men and women can physically return to their younger selves, whilst bioprinting and cosmetic surgery could mean women literally changing their faces almost as easily as changing hairstyle. Ultimately, technology could even lead to individuals routinely swapping gender, or the very idea of gender itself becoming meaningless.

 

If my interpretation of feminism is correct – which I call ‘sexual trade union theory’ – then the forces driving feminism that are resulting in inequalities and unhappiness for both men and women, will largely disappear in the coming decades. Feminism has been the history of women trying vainly to close the free sexual market that disadvantages them as accelerating technological progess continues to open it at a faster rate. Quite soon, technology will actually come to women’s aid in this regard, and we will reach a kind of ‘sexual singularity’, in which the very notion of sexual competition – the cause of feminism as a sexual trade union – becomes meaningless. The criminalisation of male sexuality, and the unhappiness of women, will be over.

Thanks to everybody who left comments on my analysis of ‘Female Sexual Power’ by Henry Lassanen.  We even had the author himself drop by to add a few points. It’s gratifying to know that he realises that I wasn’t attacking his piece, but simply reflecting upon how it fits in with Sexual Trade Union Theory.

Another interesting book on the subject of sex and society was reviewed by Ferdinand Bardemu the other day – Sex 3.0 discusses the history of sex in relation to technological and social change.  Bardemu’s review certainly made the book sound worthy enough to read sometime, but I’d like to highlight the argument that he himself makes in relation to the free sexual market that has been brought about by technology, and that I agree with absolutely :

..more traditionalist elements in the alt-right/mano-/ortho-/whateverosphere have fantasized about ending the current sexual dystopia and returning to the pre-Sexual Revolution world of marital monogamy and family values. The problem with this is that one of the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse, the very cause of our current dilemma, is the result of technological progress — the advent of cheap and effective contraception (the Pill, condoms and abortion). If the traditionalists want to return the West to the good ol’ days, they’ll have to find a way to get humanity to willingly renounce technology, a feat that has yet to be accomplished in millennia of human history. What’s the likelihood of that happening?

BBC tells it’s journalists : Don’t call Abu Quatada an extremist

BBC journalists have been told not to describe Abu Qatada as an extremist. This is despite the Muslim cleric being labelled by a British judge a “truly dangerous individual” who holds “extreme” beliefs.

The Daily Telegraph has seen notes from the BBC’s newsroom editorial meeting yesterday morning which read: “Do not call him an extremist – we must call him a radical. Extremist implies a value judgment.

The radical Islamist has called on Muslims to kill Jewish children, as well as Egyptian soldiers and their wives and children, and declared that it is not a sin for a Muslim to kill a non-believer.  This is the same news organisation that is so objective that it repeatedly rams down our throats that Islam is a religion of peace.

Meanwhile, the BBC reports on a campaign to force the British government to apologise for the way the Suffragettes of the early 20th century, some of whom plotted to assassinate Prime Minister Asquith, were treated as ‘terrorists’ :

But “terrorism” is far too strong a word for the actions of the suffragettes, considering the context, says Baroness Brenda Dean.

“If you look at any major social change, within it somewhere has been a degree of militancy… You’ve got to throw yourself back to the turn of the century when the whole social order was very different.”

Their actions have to be seen through the prism of their inability to use normal means to advocate their views, she suggests.

“These were pretty desperate measures by people in a desperate situation.”

Baroness Dean is calling on the government to give a posthumous apology for the way the suffragettes were treated.

An excellent and most interesting article entitled ‘Female Sexual Power‘ was posted on the Spearhead a few days ago.  Although I disagree with a fair bit of it, and want to contrast it with my own ‘Sexual Trade Union’ theory, its author is to be greatly applauded for producing such an original and stimulating counter-feminist account of sexual power.

The article is based upon a book, as well as an academic thesis, that the author has written in his native Finnish.  It has also apparently caused quite a stir in his homeland.  I’ll assume that you’ll take a look at it before you read the following ‘criticisms’, so I won’t spend much time explaining the article myself.  And of course, I am aware that his essay is only a short summary (written in the author’s second language) of his much longer thesis.  But as the book and thesis are in Finnish, I can only critique (briefly) his Spearhead article.

Very briefly, his conclusion is that ‘men want sex much more than women’, that therefore ‘men need women more than women need men’, and indeed that the feminist dictum ‘women need men like fish need a bicycle’ is true.  Or rather, these conclusions – based upon ‘evolutionary psychology, social exchange theory, economic theory of sexuality and Emerson’s power-dependency theory‘ – themselves serve as the premise from which to draw conclusions about the gender power structure in the world.

As I stated at the beginning, any well researched and considered attempt to explain the true, counter feminist, current (and historical) power structure between men and women is to be welcomed. But to be complete, any such explanation would hopefully give an account of the growth of feminism, the relationship between feminism and the radical transformations of society (including and in particular sexual morality) over the last few decades, and have some predictive power concerning the likely future course of gender relations (particularly important for the men’s rights movement).

Perhaps it is because the article is only a thousand word summary of a much larger book/thesis, but for me, this is where Lassanen’s theory is a little incomplete.

Laasanen acknowledges that an account of female sexual power is important because of its structural effects upon society :

The third important dimension of female sexual power lies in its structural effects. Have you ever wondered why…

1. …female romantic sexuality is an acceptable form of sexuality, while men’s sexuality is sick and perverted?
2. …women’s magazines dominate the official politically correct sexuality, but PUA guides are morally questionable?
3. …men are the more disposable sex?
4. …men must usually make the first move in the relationships and risk the rejection?
5. …men must pay on dates?
6. …laws are against men’s behavior and not against women’s behavior?

These are all excellent points, and the broad outline of Laasanen’s thesis appears very similar to that contained in Steve Moxon’s brilliant ‘The Woman Racket’.  For Steve Moxon also, the starting point in accounting for the structure of gender relations in society is the fact, rooted in evolutionary biology, that ‘women choose’ who to mate with, whereas men must compete to be chosen.  Laasanen points to a study consisting of the posting of fake dating profiles which prompt the fake single females to recieve hundreds of messages from prospective male suitors, whereas the fake single males receive none.  Moxon expresses this reality in the phrase that ‘women are the limiting factor in reproduction’.  The result of this inherent female sexual power, both Laasanen and Moxon agree, is that society inevitably prizes women above men. (It should be pointed out that both Lassanen and Moxon wrote their books independently of each other, both appearing in 2008 – highly erudite though he is, I doubt if Steve Moxon understands Finnish!).

What both of these authors appear to miss is that the growth of feminism, and the increasing disparity in overt political power between men and women, is due to the corresponding decrease in the female sexual power that industrial society, and now the globalised mass-media society, has brought about.

Laasanen himself makes clear that there is a difference between sexual market value and relationship market value :

WOMEN’S SEXUAL MARKET VALUE AND RELATIONSHIP MARKET VALUE ARE VERY DIFFERENT: Women’s sexual market value is usually much higher than her relationship market value, which means, than women can get high quality partners to short sexual relationships, but she have to lower the bar for longer relationships. For men thing are just the opposites. If a man want just sex (now, today), he must usually settle for the much lower quality partner than himself.

Unfortunately, and again I assume it is because the article is a summary of one aspect of a wider theory, Laasanen does not then go on to draw any obvious conclusions about what the relationship between short-term youthful female sexual power and declining relationship value in older women means in terms of feminism and its possible psycho-sexual motivational basis.

In the comments section below the article, Lassanen links to the following graph, which does contrast the respective difference between sexual and relationship power over the course of a man and woman’s adult life :

Although the graph confuses peak fertility with peak sexual attractiveness and has an abusrd element – are 35 year old women really as sexually desirable as 18 year old girls? – it does cover rather nicely the basic point that women’s ‘reproductive’ value decreases over time, whilst a man’s increases.

And an essential point has to be made.  The distinction between ‘sexual’ and ‘relationship’ market value both really refer to ‘reproductive’ value – the difference being that for women that means relationship value (but they only have their sexual power to win it), and for men it means sexual value (but they only have relationship power to win it).

And in the words of the incomparable Tom Snark -

Men’s sexual desires are more immediately intense than women’s.

But the baby rabies are still more powerful.

Forget chubby, keep it slim! Says a new controversial report supporting size zero.

Despite many slamming size zero models – even Victoria Beckham banned them  from her fashion show last year – the runway waif has now been backed by top academics.

A new report warns that getting rid of super-skinny models could worsen the nation’s obesity epidemic.

Researchers Dr Davide Dragone and Dr Luca Savorelli, from the University of Bologna, Italy claim that introducing larger models will increase unhealthy eating habits.

On the same basis as these academics, I’ve argued previously that in the midst of a child obesity epidemic, the feminist obsession with anorexia and the banning of ‘idealistic’ slim images of women is an utter obscenity and a clear form of child abuse.  But what’s more, it’s clear evidence for the sexual trade union theory of what feminism is.

I’ve promised Ferdinand Bardemu I’ll write the occasional article for Inmalafide.  I thought I’d start with an outline of the theory propounded on this blog that feminism is a sexual trade union for women reacting to changes in technology that continue to drive open the free sexual market (and put feminists, and the majority of women, at a sexual disadvantage).

Thinking about the article, I’ve been forced to reflect again on why I think this explanation of feminism is superior to the massively more popular ‘Cultural Marxism’ accounts.  And I’ve read again the first chapter of Steve Moxon’s excellent (and essential) ‘The Woman Racket’ and also Angry Harry’s typically cogent and well argued essay ‘Cultural Marxism and Feminism’.

I don’t think sexual trade union theory, and theories that place Cultural Marxism at the center, are actually in opposition.  I just think that the latter are simply incapable of providing complete explanations of the entire historical narrative of feminism, and the specific focus that feminism has always had on protecting the sexual interests of its supporters as they become increasingly threatened by a forever widening free sexual market.  Cultural Marxism has been the intellectual mask, the rationalisation, that feminism has needed since the sexual market was blown open with the introduction of the contraceptive pill.  That is not to deny that Cultural Marxism has, indeed, had a very concrete and leading role in the astonishing ‘success’ that feminism has enjoyed in the last few decades.  But, for me, it is sexual trade union theory that best explains the underlying psychological motivations behind feminists themselves. 

Feminism began with the religious and conservative social purity movements of the 19th century.  The first agitators for the vote for women were often extremely and openly racist. In fact, many argued that it was necessary for white women to gain the vote as a counter to the enfranchisement of the black male.  It should also be remembered that the first men’s rights activist, Ernest Belfort Bax, was a socialist thinker.  Since the 60′s, feminism has certainly been predominantly left-wing.  But recently, with the likes of Sarah Palin, we’ve begun to see the strong re-emergence of the ‘femiservative’ (a term coined by Ferdinand Bardemu).

Feminists have always changed their political allegiances with the wind.  The only constant is that whichever intellectual or political theory their movement adopts, they do so with the rationalisation and protection of their threatened sexual interests chiefly in mind (consciously or subconsciously).

The feminist focus upon, and exploitation of, anorexia, and the campaign against size zero models, as well as laws such as the recent French ban on ‘digitally airbrushed images of women in the media’, can be explained partly by cultural marxism, but more exhaustively (and more simply) by sexual trade union theory.

Not only do feminists pursue a policy of campaigning against size zero models, as well as digitally slimmed down images of women, policies that will likely cause a rise in general obesity, (something that is a far greater problem for young girls than is anorexia).  They also remain completely silent about the fast food industry, which spends millions and makes billions in persuading young people to eat their unhealthy, fattening products.

 But really, why should cultural marxism, in itself, so clearly lead feminists to confront the fashion industry rather than the fast food industry?  Other ‘liberal progressives’ and Michael Moore Wannabes have.  The fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men who, in the words of one commentator, want their female models to be as sexless and aneroxic as possible, as a kind of substitute for the unattainable boys that they pine for.  Not exactly the usual bogeymen of cultural Marxism. The food industry is dominated by buisnessmen running international corporations that make massive profits from destroying the health of children through obesity…and ruining the sexual attractiveness of teenage girls (something, which of course, feminists want).  The multi-billion dollar male dominated fast food industry is a more logical and honest target for victim and opresser ideology, but attacking the fashion industry, and remaining silent upon obesity and fast food, serves the sexual interests of feminists much better.

The fact is that only sexual trade union theory can explain all feminist behaviour, from particular campaigns such as the targeting of ‘size zero models’, to the broad brush strokes of each successive wave of feminism.  Feminism has always been the story of women being stirred into increasing political activism as new technology threatens their sexual power in a market that continues to open.  Size zero models and digitally airbrushed images are just one of the latest manifestations of this in the history of feminism as a sexual trade union.